CARNEY: Create minimum standards of coverage. Minimum services that every insurance plan has to put up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If he does not succeeding with ObamaCare from the expense of liberalism, I think they`ll be sent back a full generation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I refuse to see this country and all of us shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time because what we are now talking about in our children`s day will seem to be the ordinary business in government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Wow, JFK versus Ronald Reagan talking about Medicare and healthcare back in the day. Two political icons in American history and of course it was realized under LBJ. And I think that we`re going through a little bit of this right now, big time. 30 years from now, we`re going to be thinking about, "Gosh, Obama had a lot of negativity on him."

You know, there is so much negativity right now that`s taking place in the media. I find it absolutely amazing. It`s almost as if we`re afraid to say a positive statement about healthcare for millions of Americans.

Let`s start with the numbers tonight if we can. ObamaCare by the Gallup Poll was at 41 percent with the American people back in August. In October it was at 45 percent. It`s gaining in popularity. The more we hear about it, the more people realize it. But I know we`re fixated on websites right now.

You know what? I think that network reporters throughout the entire industry maybe caught in a dilemma that ObamaCare is so positive and going to have such a tremendous impact on American life and American society. It`s setting the foundation for better changes in the future. I think that network reporters and people on TV are having a hard time saying something nice about it or positive about it because they might be viewed as journalistically compromised. They`re not really showing a great deal of integrity if they say something positive about ObamaCare.

Here is the point. There are absolutes. And if you go to a free healthcare clinic and if you run into someone who hasn`t seen a doctor for seven years and that person has stage four breast cancer, believe me, it will change you.

All of that is going to be changed under ObamaCare, but in the meantime there`s an awful lot of misinformation floating around television about ObamaCare these days. So let me just take a few minutes to set the record straight tonight. Let`s start with perception about what America is going through. When I was in London last week, I tweeted out man on the street, a conversation in UK. Why does you media want healthcare to fail?

Now, where in the world would they ever get that idea? Take a look at some of the reporting over the last few days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Millions of people right now can`t -- either holding their hands up in distress. Number one, because they`re losing their insurance policies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More than two million Americans have been told they cannot renew their current health insurance policies.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that is more than tripled the number of people said to be buying insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He discovered the White House officials were aware that between 40 to 67 percent of individuals will not be able to keep their policies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The real problem is that people weren`t told the truth. You can remember they were told that they would be able to keep their policies if they liked them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Oh, lots of accusations floating around. Who`s lying? Lots of numbers being thrown out there whether they`re correct or not? Well let`s get to the chase.

Let`s start tonight by giving you the Paul Harvey rest of the story. 14 million people in this country purchase insurance on the individual marketplace. If you purchase health insurance from an individual marketplace, there are no changes made to your plan if you can keep it. Amazing, isn`t it? You`re grandfather didn`t.

Now, however, if your insurer, meaning the insurance company makes changes to your plan like changing a premium or deductible or you`re plan is no -- and you`re is no longer valid. OK, you would get a cancellation notice. And that`s what`s going on right now and be forced to upgrade to a plan with standards under the Affordable Care Act.

Folks, this is all about standards. These 14 million people that buy insurance on the individual marketplace, some of them are going to get these notices because they have, I can`t use the S word, they have crappy insurance.

Raising the standards of health care in America and making sure insurance companies live up and actually deliver what their suppose to is what ObamaCare is all about. Now I would to assume if a network anchor were to say something like that, they might get call on the carpet for saying something positive.

All plans created after 2014 will have to meet the standards which is good for consumers. Oh, that`s positive, we can`t say that. The whole point is that we`re going to be getting rid of junk insurance plans that really haven`t delivered anything for the American people in a positive way.

For example, consumer reports analyzed a number of low-quality plans, they found in some cases junk plans are worsen, no insurance at all. For example, if you were on a fixed benefit indemnity plan, it could look like something like this. The cost of your plan is still going to be $450 a month. You can get a $100 a piece for five doctor`s visit. $50 a year for screenings and tests and $1000 a day for up to 30 days in the hospital, and you might think when you sign onto this whole, that`s really good, really?

Let me put that in perspective. The average hospital stay cost over $1700 a day I mean if you get really sick, this plan is going to hangout to dry financially and on top of it, you`re still paying $450 a month for health insurance which is junk, the whole point of health reform is to do a way with plans like this.

They are essential health benefits offered with ObamaCare. This is what we call new standards that must be provided to consumers. Why does that get reported by all the people who think that, well, 40 to 60 percent of the people are going to be losing her insurance, over 2 million, 2 million people on this country, Charlie have got lousy insurance and Obama is trying to do something about it. That`s your headline on CBS, dude.

First, ambulatory patient services are going to be included, dog gone it. They`re going to give you a ride to the freaking hospital. You could get covered without being admitted to the hospital. This of course is another good thing. Emergency services are going to be covered. Hospitalization is covered. This includes even surgery? Oh, yeah.

Maternity and newborn care is on the list. Mental health and substance use disorder services are also covered. Prescription drug cost, they are required on this plan as well. Rehabilitative services are covered. This includes things like physical therapy, laboratory services must be covered, preventive and wellness visits are going to be covered, and the pediatric services must be covered.

The two biggest kickers in all of this, and it`s just a quick bullet point out there. No lifetime limits on coverage and preexisting conditions are covered. These are the standards that ObamaCare is bringing to the marketplace. This is an upgrade. We`re upgrading, honey, what do you think about that?

You know, those people that I saw at these free health care clinics would have given anything for an upgrade. Number one they couldn`t afford it, and number two they didn`t know how to get it in many cases, and they hadn`t seen doctors for years.

This is a key element, if you are a low-income earner on a junk plan, you can qualify for subsidies to help purchase a quality plan with those damn standards that I`m talking about, and then in the long run, health care reform is going to be great for America and Republicans know it.

What do you think Krauthammer was talking about? People are going to be healthier and then they long on health care cost, what are they`re going to do? They`re going to go down. But of course the liberal congressional budget office was the people that put that report together. We don`t want to pay any attention to them. They`re really not non-partisan according to the conservatives.

This has Republicans scared out of their minds. They don`t know what to do with it. Krauthammer laid down the battle lines this morning. He said, if ObamaCare fails, liberalism will be set back a generation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRAUTHAMMER: The irony is that his signature achievement, ObamaCare is the test of this new liberalism. And today it hangs in a balance of a website or a promise here and there. So this kind of practical reality check on his ambitions. If he is not succeeding with ObamaCare, the cost of the kind of expensive liberalism, the kind of entitlement state, he`s been looking for. I think they`ll be sent back a full generation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: This is not about entitlements, this is about access. This is about people being denied and this new liberalism that`s out there. Heck, I though Kennedy had a pretty good dose of how he wanted to take this country in the right direction. And now President Obama, I guess you could say generally speaking is taking us to round two. What are they afraid of, they are afraid that this is going to be so popular and that they are on the wrong side of history that they wont be able to recover for generations because the Democrats and President Obama will be accredited with doing something really, really big for American families.

Krauthammer knows this is Armageddon for conservatives, if they don`t stop it now. That title wave`s coming in, they`re not going to be able to have a big enough wall to stop the wave of positive -- positive things happening with ObamaCare, you know, it`s easy to get on TV and throw out one number, after another number, after another number.

I had an interesting conversation today with the governor of Kentucky. I was so moved by what he was saying and the impact at the rollout of ObamaCare, the Affordable Health Care Act in Kentucky has been like. I`m going to go to Kentucky. I have to go to Kentucky and I want to see this in action. How can Kentucky get it so right and a number of other states who were rejecting ObamaCare get it so wrong?

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, is the media doing enough to combat the lies about ObamaCare? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622 and you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com and leave a comment there. We love that. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

For more, let`s bring in the former Vice President of Corporate Communications for CIGNA Health Insurance, Wendell Potter. Mr. Potter good to have you with us tonight, I`ll take the liberty to say that .

WENDELL POTTER, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: Go ahead.

SCHULTZ: . you know, ObamaCare, you know, the Affordable Health Care Act better than anybody and I appreciate your time here tonight.

I want to know about this .

POTTER: Thank you Ed.

SCHULTZ: . people that are getting the phone calls. I`ll go to you the expert. Who were the people giving the phone calls that their insurance isn`t going to be any good anymore? Explain that to our viewers to night.

POTTER: Well, frankly Ed the people like my daughter who got a notice that her plan will be discontinued and here`s why, it`s because her plan was among those that are inadequate, the commonwealth fund recently did a survey where the study showing that up to 30 million Americans are in plans that are inadequate as soon as they signed up for these plans they are in the ranks of the underinsured. Meaning, as you said, if they get really sick, they`re going to be on the hook for a lot of money even .

SCHULTZ: . and so, everybody in America, there`s 2 million people of the 14 million that are in the free market right now have lousy plans. So this is about standards.

POTTER: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: President Obama, ObamaCare has .

POTTER: It is.

SCHULTZ: . brought standards to the industry that must be met for consumers, correct?

POTTER: That`s exactly right, Ed. And this is welcome news, it is one of the reasons why we had to have health care reform in the first place because a lot of companies including those I used to work for had made a lot of money selling junk insurance, selling coverage to people that doesn`t protect them and the reason is because those plans are very, very profitable. Insurance companies do not have to pay very much on claims.

People in those claims often think they`ve got protection and they find out when it`s too late that they don`t.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Potter how has the media misrepresented this story?

POTTER: They`ve misrepresented it because they had just have not done their homework and I tell you, we can`t give the White House a pass on this because, this is something we knew what happened. We knew that insurance companies will be setting up these notices because they`ve been selling junk coverage.

And so the White House should have been on top of this a long time ago. I would give them a failing grade on crisis communications or damage control right now. But the mainstream media also can`t get a pass. They got an obligation to tell the truth about what`s really going on and to flip this into appropriate context. This 14 million people who are in the individual market that`s less than 5 percent of the total US population. Of those, more than half of them probably -- well more than half will get subsidies to help them by coverage. So they no only will get better coverage, they`ll pay less for it and they`re paying now for crappy coverage.

SCHULTZ: So this is a key point, this is the other side of the story. This is the rest of the story. These 2 million folks out there .

POTTER: Right.

SCHULTZ: . who were getting these notices are going to be going, being able to go into these state exchanges and they`re going to be able to go to the federal system, and they`re going to be able to get insurance in many cases at a cheaper rate, with standards, and better coverage, correct?

POTTER: Right. That`s exactly right.

SCHULTZ: How in the world could reporters live that out? How in the world can reporters live that out?

POTTER: Because they`re being completely irresponsible or are just wanting to make sure that they get a headline or the lead story on the 6:00 news or whatever. It is just completely irresponsible reporting or shoddy reporting.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Potter thank you for joining us tonight on the Ed Show. I appreciate it so much. And I do think...

POTTER: Thank you Ed.

SCHULTZ: ...that if you go to a healthcare clinic and you run into somebody who hasn`t had insurance and seen a doctor for years and has got stage 3 or 4 breast cancer and I`ve met these Americans this is a game changer for them and it will change you, it will change how you deal all of this, this is why I get infuriated because I know this people haven`t been there, I know they haven`t gone face to face with the American people. It`s easy to sit there and just throw out a number. Well, 2 million people are going to get screwed, they`re getting notices and Obama should have known this.

Why don`t some of these network reporters get off their ass and go down to some of these clinics and meet the real people who were going to see the benefits of ObamaCare, is there a moral component to that? Oh, that`s too heavy a question for a network story.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter at Ed Show, and on Facebook want to know what you think, tell me if I`m wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republican senators who voted against hurricane Sandy relief aid have the nerve to come to New York and shape down donors on the one year anniversary of storm Sandy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders and the social media. This is where you can find us and we love it when you do. Facebook.com/edshow, Twitter.com/edshow, and Ed.MSNBC.com. And on the radio weekdays noon to three Sirius XM Channel 127 The Ed Schultz Radio Show.

The Ed Show social media nation has decided. We again tonight are reporting. Here are today`s Top Trenders voted on by you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number three Trender, Coburn.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Critics ripped into Republican Senator Tom Coburn for headlining a gala fund raisers in the eve of the anniversary of Hurricane Sandy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Republican name calling continues.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This isn`t any lash out of his critics at least not most of them. He says, "There`s no comedy with Harry Reid. I think he`s an absolute -- hole."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pardon my French, but you`re an -- hole.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two Trender, statue of limitations.

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: The Statue of Liberty is probably the most identifying symbol of America.

SCHLAFLY: The Statue of Liberty memorializes the unique liberty we enjoy in America. It has nothing whatever to do with immigration. It is the Statue of

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today`s Top Trender, shocker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m shocked. Shocked.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Republican two-word culture returns.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The reports is (inaudible) shock for those who are young and healthy are widespread .

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sticker shock.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sticker shock.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sticker shock.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He would be shocked to know what it calls.

(END VIDE CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Dr. Corey Hebert, CEO of BlackhealthTV.com and a professor at LSU Health Science Center, great to have you with us, doctor. I appreciate your time tonight.

Is it disingenuous and a mislabel by the media and by the conservatives to use the term "Sticker Shock"?

DR. COREY HEBERT, BLACKHEALTHTV.COM CEO: Yeah it is, because guess what? You`re getting a better product. I mean it`s not sticker shock when you want to buy a Rolls Royce and you get the Rolls Royce. I mean obviously, the subsidies are going to help pay for the insurance of the people and that`s why we have got to get the website fixed.

And, you know, I`m not excusing ObamaCare for, you know, Obama for this website debacle, but at the same time the more we enroll people in the insurance then the price will go down. So it`s not sticker shock and we got to get the website fixed so we can enroll more people.

SCHULTZ: Now, ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act has standards that we haven`t seen before. It`s going to weed out the junk insurance. I want to know what`s your reaction as a doctor to that, what does that mean to you, the provider?

HEBERT: Well I`m really upset about it because the issue is 90 percent of Americans never read their insurance policies. So they don`t really know that they don`t have maternity care or they don`t have prescription drug coverage until they get pregnant and needs a medicine, OK.

So the issue is let`s kind of think about it like car insurance. If you have a Rolls Royce, you can`t have Honda coverage, you have to have Rolls Royce coverage. Same thing with insurance for your body, you cannot just walk around with no insurance because if you do and you get sick and everybody else has to pay for it. Sounds very Republican, right? Nobody wants to pay for people that they don`t actually have to deal with.

So the reality for me is that the Republicans really should embrace this because this is what they actually came up with it.

SCHULTZ: Well the Republicans obviously used the term government takeover. They had -- Now they got sticker shocked. But when they were talking about government take over, they were talking about the standards that are going to be put in the industry that must be met by the insurance industry for consumers. And so this is a law telling people how they`re going to have to operate. This is -- They call that the government takeover.

You as a doctor, what do you call it?

HEBERT: I don`t call anything except throwing away garbage that people were being sold for many years and not knowing that they actually don`t have a standard. I mean, everything needs to have a standard when especially it comes to -- when it comes to dealing with your health. You can`t have people that think that they have good insurance and they don`t. There`s always a standard and that`s what we`re doing.

SCHULTZ: The first show that I did on MSNBC in April of 2009, I pulled out my health care bill and I just showed the numbers on there and I asked the audience if you thought this was fair and, oh by the way was our rate back in 2007, 2008 and now in 2009. That was sticker shock.

HEBERT: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: And I just want to say, nobody is going to be getting those kinds of increases 18 to 20 percent increases which we saw in many cases on the individual insurance market back there in the Bush years.

HEBERT: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: And I think that has to be said. That`s not being talked about enough by the Democrats out there.

You want sticker shock. Let`s go back and take a review exactly what the insurance rates were from 2000 to 2008, and then when we started to talk about ObamaCare, they started to come down a little bit because the insurance industry was nervous about what was going to happen.

And then the standards came in and now the report is well, there two million people out there that are getting a nasty notice. They`re getting the notice because they got junk insurance.

Now -- go ahead.

HEBERT: Well, think about this. I mean, I bring the facts, Ed. Think about this. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study in 2008 that shows a family for actually had insurance that doubled to $13,000 in 2008 and an individual had insurance that doubled to almost $6,000.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HEBERT: Now, if you do mathematic right, Bush was president from 2001 to 2009. So, unless he drop -- in lessen -- dropped the last month of his presidency, that didn`t happen. They hadn`t fixed up.

SCHULTZ: But I didn`t hear any of these conservatives talking about sticker shock fact then.

HEBERT: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: That was just the free market at work. That`s all what that was.

HEBERT: That`s what it is. Exactly.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Corey Hebert you`re great. Great to have you on with us. Thank so much from joining us tonight.

HEBERT: Thank you for having me.

SCHULTZ: You bet.

Coming up, new developments in the decades-long fight over the Redskins team name in the National Football League.

And later, the Fox News medical A-team gets an F in tonight`s Pretenders.

But next, I`m taking your questions Ask Ed Live just ahead here on the MSNBC. Stay with us.

Tonight in our Ask Ed Live segment, our first question comes from Carmen and it is, "Why is the GOP targeting the big the big three? Because they want to privatize absolutely everything they can get their hands on.

You see, privatization means instead of this money in Social Security going into a government fund it`s going to be dished out later on benefits, it would go to like Wall Street and then they could play with that money. And if the market goes up, you`ll be better off, if it goes down, you want to take that risk then you wouldn`t have any Social Security. They believe in profit. That`s what they`re all about. They`re not so concerned with security.

Our next question comes from Mike Baugher from Virginia. Apparently he says the Virginia governor`s race is being watched by the country. Who do you think will win the election and why?

Well the recent polling has Terry McAuliffe of who I think is a great guy, he`s a business guy with a heart, he`s a compassionate guy, he`s a good Democrat, and he`s a believer in business and people and education and all the things that the Republicans have been going after is what he has been standing up for.

And Cuccinelli, I mean come on this guy has taken us to ground zero on the war on women in Virginia. And some of the radical things that he has said and done and advocated for has turned off a lot of voting blocks. But the bottom line is you got to get out and vote.

You can`t talk your way to the championship. So those folks in Virginia, if they really want change this is the time to get out there and get it done. I think Terry McAuliffe will win. I want him to win.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNBC REPORTER: I`m Kayla Tausche with your CNBC Market Wrap. The Dow surge 111 points, the S&P had a new high gaining 9, and then NASDAQ added 12.

Single family home crisis saw their biggest annual gain in August since 2006. Prices jump 12.8 percent from a year ago. Meanwhile, retail sales edged down 0.1 percent in September that`s thanks to a drop in auto sales. And the BlackBerry shares are off after the Wall Street Journal reported executives met with Facebook to discuss a possible bid with the troubled smartphone maker.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. This is a special group of folks in American, NFL owners, a group of people who just cannot be offended, they run the world in their world. You can`t hit an NFL owner, you can hit him as hard if you want it completely out of their character to be told what to do. There`s a level of arrogance supported by power and money, no doubt.

And Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is no exception. Snyder is worth an estimated $1.2 billion. Good for him. He`s not used to being told what to do. This NFL owner is more interested in money than political correctness and satisfying a crowd out there that thinks his team`s name is wrong. But recent criticism of the Redskins name has put Snyder on the hot seat. The NFL is scheduled to meet the Oneida Indian Nation on Wednesday regarding the team`s name.

Now prior to that meeting, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell met with Snyder and according to the Washington Post Snyder said that he has no plans to change the name.

Now in the past, Snyder has made it very clear he has no intention of changing the team`s name. Earlier this month, Snyder published an open letter to the Washington post. Douglas Hill is in and actually asked those who are offended by the name to "Try and have respect for what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington Redskins family but among native Americans too."

Now if you look for the word redskin in the dictionary, the term is widely identified as offensive slang.

Joining me now is Dave Zirin sports editor of The Nation magazine and you can find his work at EdgeofSports.com. Dave, good to have you with us tonight.

This -- You know, I remember doing sports 25 years ago, there were protests outside the Metrodome and Minneapolis, Northern Minnesota, Native Americans came up saying that they didn`t like the name Washington Redskins. I mean this has been going on for a long time. Why all of a sudden and I say over the last year or so after 20 some -- 25 years of this conversation, why is it such a heated conversation right now?

DAVE ZIRIN, SPORTS EDITOR: It`s a great question, Ed because the story has exploded over the last year and there are really three reasons for why this is the case. The first is the active intervention of Native American tribes, the Oneida Indian Nation, The Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma and the Midwest today have stepped forward and they have said, "You know, what? This is not OK with us, the United Nation has bought commercials in DC radio, sports radio, Airtime, and they`ve actually also organized demonstrations and places like green day .

SCHULTZ: Sure.

ZIRIN: . and there`s one coming up November 7th, but there are two other reasons as well. The first is that the team is relevant for the first time in 20 years, I mean back when George H. Bush was president and now is the last time Washington was in the Super Bowl, there were protests and seat-ins at the Super Bowl. You could go back and look this up, but then no one has really cared about them in 20 years.

So fast forward to today, Robert Griffin III is their star quarter back, people care about this team and people are also asking why this name. And the last reason why this has gotten new steam is about the man you talked about, Dan Snyder, I mean he is like teaching a master class an anti-public relations. Every time the guy opens his mouth he`s almost like a caricature of the kind of arrogant 1 percent who puts everybody`s teeth on edgeand I think that`s why.

SCHULTZ: Dave, can the NFL force him to change the team`s name? It`s not like them to pick on people in their own fraternity. And this report now says that he is simply not going to change the name. What authority does the league have if any?

ZIRIN: Now, the league unfortunately has no authority to actually push him to change his name. Here`s who has authority. The Federal Courts have authority if they deem that the name is in fact a slur. You`re not actually allowed to name a product after a slur. That`s a law.

And so if that court case goes through and it`s term to be a slur then he would have to change the name. Something else the word have to change name, if he wants to move the team out of the Maryland suburbs where they`re currently are and into Washington DC, the DC City council has said already, we will not allow you back into the city unless you change the name.

SCHULTZ: All right. Dave Zirin, thanks for you time tonight. I appreciate it. Now, let`s brings in DC`s delegate House of Representative Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and James Peterson, Director of Africana Studies and Associate Professor of English at Lehigh University and MSNBC Contributor.

Dr. Peterson, let me ask you first. To the point, is the term redskins as bad s the N word.

JAMES PETERSON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I mean, if they recall the Washington Blackskins and they had a minstrel on their helmet and they were called the Washington Whiteskins and they had some colonial white person on the helmet. I think black and white here in America would be able to see it for what it is. It is a racial slur. We should have zero challenge for this. We would hope that the NFL, Mr. Snyder and the Redskins organization can take a leadership role on this.

We want them to get out and lead on this issue. And it shouldn`t be pressured by different nations, by different American-Indian nations. They should have to be pressured by the federal government.

It`s the 21st century. There`s a way in which this language, the image as well as the name does much violence as the name Washington Bullets that you show the basketball franchise now they change.

SCHULTZ: Yeah, they change their name.

PETERSON: Then in recovery time for grants though that we should be sympathetic in some ways for, but at the end of the day what`s right is what`s right and their name is very wrong.

SCHULTZ: In government reaction come again Nancy Pelosi recently told the Hill it would probably be a good idea if they change the name. President Obama said, that he would think changing the name if he were the owner.

Congresswoman, did this types of voices make a difference?

REP. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, (D) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Well, not only do our voices make a difference and some of us have even found a bill. But I think increasing the voices of the people make a difference.

And I hope that Dan Snyder doesn`t put himself in the same category as George Preston Marshall who is forced to integrate the team the last of the teams to be integrated because he was playing on federal land. And said that he would integrate the team with the Holland road cut (ph) (inaudible) integrate it with white.

I mean, he wasn`t about racist and I don`t think that`s what Dan Snyder is, but he is about to go to the same route as George Preston Marshall did because the patent and trademark office on four different occasions when he tried to patent the name anew since 1999 had turn down such request.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HOLMES NORTON: And the trademark appeals board has already found the name to be disparaging. It was overturned by a court only on a procedure technicality if they followed their own president and a new case was just argued in March.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HOLMES NORTON: This name is going, going, going, gone step up before you`re compelled.

SCHULTZ: Well, it seems like he`s not going to do that. I mean, he is still the NFL Commissioner, he`s not going to change the name. The only way to hit him is in his pocketbook. The only way -- I mean, and do you think that sponsors would start putting pressure on him?

HOLMES NORTON: After awhile, because -- let me talk about this pocketbook for a moment.

Imagine if in fact those of us who love the Redskins and count me among them have to get rid of all those hats and shirts and other paraphernalia and he`s got a make them anew. He`s going to make amend.

So, as far from loosing money this is a good business decision as well.

SCHULTZ: But the arrogance of NFL owners is that nobody is going to tell them what to do. I mean look, James Peterson look at how they were in denial for long about -- for a long time about head injuries and really didn`t want to do anything about that.

PETERSON: Yeah, but the federal government can tell you what to do.

PETERSON: The problem with this .

SCHULTZ: Hold it for a minute. OK, so Congresswoman you think that the Redskins are going to be forced to change their name?

HOLMES NORTON: I do. I do based on all the presidents that are out there. The recent President I don`t see how the trademark appeal board can do anything else and the statute itself which has been found to be constitutional .

SCHULTZ: OK.

HOLMES NORTON: Says that you cannot profit from a derogatory name.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mr. Peterson, what`s ahead for the Redskins here?

PETERSON: Well, I think my sense is that what NFL owners have got to come to terms within their sort of 1 percent bubbles is that this franchise is really exist as public priority partnerships. I mean they`re privately owned but they don`t really exist without the public. They can`t really function without the kind of municipal and statewide support that they get for their stadiums and other things.

So, in the spirit of that I would hope that Mr. Snyder again would not have to be forced to do this, but would take the opportunity to transition the team now. The team is not doing so great right now. So, good you to do it anyway, at least change the mascot and change the image on the helmet. That would be a good gesture moving in the right direction even before you change the name.

So, hopefully he`ll do what`s right here and the NFL will not begin to continue to be smart (ph) as brand with this kind of racist slurs.

SCHULTZ: Well, NFL owners demand stadiums and public financing that they`re going to move their team.

PETERSON: That`s right.

SCHULTZ: They`re not used to being told what to do. Congresswoman Ellen Holmes she believes that they`re going to change the name. This is interesting, let`s see where it all goes down.

I think the guy is so arrogant. I think he`d rather sell the team and change the name and be known and be known as the owner that changed the name of the team.

Congresswoman Ellen Holmes Norton and James Peterson thank you for joining us tonight.

Coming up, giving up the grand bargain. We`ll find out the best case scenario for this week`s budget talks in Washington. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, bad diagnosis Dr. Marc Siegel. Sean Hannity invited Siegel, a member of the Fox News Medical A-team to the ObamaCare panel. And I pity the fool who believes this garbage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MARC SIEGEL, FOX NEWS MEDICAL A-TEAM: Right now health care is in trouble and when ObamaCare really got wrong in a big way,.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

SIEGEL: . is understanding that we`re talking about the health care needs of the people of the US not the health insurance needs, it`s a totally different thing. Before they started this we were all in trouble with insurance to begin with, there`s too much health insurance, it covers too much, too many people have it and they can`t fit in my office to see me. I`m full.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Correct Dr. Siegel you are a fool of it. This doctor says, "Too many people have access to preventive care. Too many people won`t go broke when they get sick, too many people aren`t passing their urgent care cost to taxpayers. Patients have a good reason to stay out of this doctor`s office.

But if Mark Siegel believes it`s because he`s run out of room he can keep on pretending.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is a story for the folks who take a shower after work. The next Capitol Hill invented fiscal crises is just around the corner.

Government funding is set to run out again on January 15th, I just know you love to hear that, expectations I would say are very low, by the bipartisan group in Congress given the task of presenting a new path forward.

HARRY REID, (D-NV) SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I hope that we can do some stuff to get rid of the sequestration and go on to do some sensible budgets -- budgeteering. I`ve got a wonderful leader of my budget committee Patty Murray from the state of Washington. And I feel pretty comfortable that she`ll do a good job for us. But I don`t -- I would hope there would be a grand bargain. But I don`t see that happening.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: White House and top Democrats are still talking about a balanced plan requiring new revenues as part of a long-term budget blueprint to replace this sequester but almost no one expects that to happen.

The 29-member bipartisan group`s first and so far only scheduled meeting after everything we`ve been through, their first meeting is tomorrow and they don`t have anything planned after that.

Joining us tonight David Stockman, he`s the former Office of Management and Budget Director under President Reagan and author of the best selling book, "The Great Deformation, The Corruption of Capitalism in America". Honored to have you Mr. Stockman and thank you for joining us tonight.

DAVID STOCKMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR UNDER PRESIDENT REAGAN: Nice to be here.

SCHULTZ: Of course you`re a veteran of shutdowns; you`ve been through eight of them.

STOCKMAN: I`ve been through eight of them. There is not going to be a grand bargain, there is going to be a bipartisan dance of the (inaudible) with their head in the sand stumbling forward till we get to the next crisis.

SCHULTZ: So, we get the instant replay machine.

STOCKMAN: I think we do and the Republicans are now out there saying, "Raise defense." In reverse this tiny pinprick that we have in the sequester, but what are they thinking? We would still have a $600 billion defense budget after the sequester which is 50 percent higher than it was in 2000 in real dollars before the whole Bush war machine got cranked up, et cetera.

They didn`t get the memo that the Cold War is over, we`ve been fired as the policeman of the world, the American people said, "Stop it Syria we don`t need this war machine," they could cut substantially. But instead the Republicans will fight to raise it. Democrats want revenue. They blew it in the fiscal cliff bill when they extended permanently $4 trillion of tax cuts for the upper part of the households in America. The lower part wage workers and low-income people weren`t going to be impacted anyway we never should have extended those taxes, you can`t get them back now, it`s permanent.

And so, there`s no revenue except trivial, you know, loophole closing which will never happen because the lobbyists dominate the process.

And then finally, if I could just say President Obama stock his toe in the water on entitlement reform but it was the wrong toe, he said, "You know, change CPI." Well, that means that the person on minimum benefit is going to get hit in their -- you know, if they have no other income $9,000 a year they`re going to get hit, whereas as a duffer (ph) retired in Florida living on a golf course getting $50,000 a year in Social Security and Medicare is going to be barely feel the nick.

There should be means testing where you take the savings out of the top. And so, what we have is a total stalemate we`re going to do nothing on entitlements, they`re going try to raise defense, and there`s no revenue to be had politically.

SCHULTZ: So, you`re forecasted from what your answer is that you think that we`re going to be doing the number of these cycles all the way till 2014 to see if one party gets absolute power in the legislative branch?

STOCKMAN: I think we`ll do them through 2016 and my argument is if we wait till 2017 to address this festering problem and the debt deniers are wrong we have a huge long-term deficit problem. If you wait till 2017 it means you`re going to hope nothing bad happens, no recessions, seven years of recovery, lot of jobs created, everything is built in to the CBO forecast which I think is rosy scenario.

So, I think we`re drifting in to danger and yet unless they do something now how can anything be done?

SCHULTZ: How would you fix it, if there`s no new revenue how do you fix it defense spending?

STOCKMAN: You have to have a massive demobilization of this war machine, we don`t need it any longer, we`re out of that business. It need ...

SCHULTZ: Even keeping the country safe from this environment?

STOCKMAN: Of course we can keep the country safe on $400 billion a year, we don`t need $600 billion. Bill Clinton was keeping the country safe on $400 billion, second we have to means test the entitlements. There is nothing in the trust funds, that`s confetti we have to means test and go for the affluent recipient reduces benefits under Medicare, and Social Security, and then finally we need to have some more revenue, but it`s going to be hard to find.

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s a lot of money sitting offshore, that`s not tax. And well that`s for another discussion, I want you to come back. I enjoy visiting with you and we will do it again. Mr. Stockman, well thank you very much. I appreciate it.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>